Rush: "Mullah Nancy Bin Pelosi ... is no different" than those who "convince all these people to put bombs on their kids"
March 01, 2010 1:29 pm ET
From the March 1 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
is there a defamation suit out of this?
could someone say honestly this wasn't sexit.....i mean he didnt call her a feminazi but jesus.
Dennis Miller?
Randy
Rush, up your meds.
Um... Wait...
Does she, in fact, have ANYTHING in common with these people?
Given the tone of his rhetoric and the social positions he holds, I'd say that LIMBAUGH is much closer to these radical islamists than ANY Democrat is.
Just becuase you hate them and we hate you doesn't mean we like them, or that we're anything like them, Rush. The similarity of two groups or people are often independant of their feelings for one another.
-------------------------------------------------------
The Right in this country share almost every policy that the islamists do, just substitute "chistian" for "sharia," "bible" for "koran" and "Jesus" for "Muhammed" and the rhetoric matches almost perfectly.
But in all seriousness, when he says absolutely indefensible like this, the wingnuts are usually strangely absent in the comment threads.
She said let's wait until we see the full report on Rangel from the ethics people before we make a final determination, and she said that what we've seen so far doesn't look good at all.
PELOSI: Well, I don't know. You understand that the Ethics Committee is an independent, bipartisan committee in the House. They act independent of us. And that's exactly the way it should be. I, though, when I became speaker, instituted an outside ethics panel which makes recommendations in so that we have a double way to receive information, although the ethics committee can self initiate, as well as take recommendations from the outside panel. So we're going to look forward to seeing what else they have to say about what they have before him regarding Chairman Rangel.
VARGAS: If there are further admonishments, though, should he remain in this position?
PELOSI: Well, let's why don't we just give him a chance to hear what the independent, bipartisan -- they work very hard to reach their conclusions and we obviously there's more to come here.
VARGAS: And – but you don't -- you understand this is why so many Americans think Congress is corrupt. It just doesn't -- it doesn't look good. It doesn't pass the smell test.
PELOSI: No, it doesn't. No, it doesn't. I served for seven years on the Ethics Committee and the last thing I would have wanted would be for the Speaker of the House to interfere in a political way in what was going on there. That just should never happen. But the fact is, is that what Mr. Rangel has been admonished for is not good. It was a violation of the rules of the House. It was not a -- something that jeopardized our country in any way.
So it remains to be seen what the rest of the work of the committee is. And I hope it will be soon. But again, it's independent and they go with their own -- they go at their own pace.
My point was that this is about ethics not jeopardizing our country, which I thought was an odd thing to bring up because it sounded as if she was using it as some sort of defense for not moving faster on this.
Exactly, she was explaining why the allegation should be dealt with by the ethics committee, not her. I really don't see what's wrong with that.
Rangel's alleged misdeeds have not "jeopardized our country in any way."
Well I suppose one could say that, though I don't believe anyone even suggested otherwise. But quite frankly it's an odd thing for Pelosi to bring up as some sort of defense of Rangel. This case is about ethics, not whether someone's alleged crime can jeopardize our country.
Though as I said in my other post, unethical lawmakers can, in the long run, hurt the country.
I just found it an odd thing for Pelosi to even say...because it did sound like some kind of defense.
It's like being accused of robbing a bank, & offering a defense of "Well I didn't kill anybody"
I wasn't defending Limbaugh.
It could be more like giving a reason that the defendent should be tried in local, not federal court. Well, that depends on how you read the contents of Pelosi's mind. Either way, it's a very small matter.
Of course, it always is...unless we're talking about a Republican, eh? ;-)
If he had been convicted of a crime, then there'd be an immediate need for the Democratic leadership in the House to deal with that finding.
This is not an equivalent 'sin'.
She came down on me like ten tons of bricks over my not supporting the Iraq War a few years back. She called me a lot of things that I hope she's forgotten, since she had a few too many that night. I just wish I could forget it.
But, she's my wife's best friend, so I endure.
PLEASE continue to try and frighten the American people with bogeymen. It worked SO well in 2006 and 2008.
Randy
God works in mysterious ways - the next time Rush visits Hawaii, I hope he never comes back.